Manufacturing consent for private and public sector clients for over 250 years

Uncle Tom’s Empire

I don’t normally do this kind of thing, but, given the arrest of Julian Assange last week, and the awkward and cowardly responses thereto, I felt it necessary to abandon my customary literary standards and spew out a spineless, hypocritical “hot take” professing my concern about the dangerous precedent the U.S. government may be setting by extraditing and prosecuting a publisher for exposing American war crimes and such, while at the same time making it abundantly clear how much I personally loathe Assange, and consider him an enemy of America, and freedom, and want the authorities to crush him like a cockroach.

Now I want to be absolutely clear. I totally defend Assange and Wikileaks, and the principle of freedom of the press, and whatever. And I am all for exposing American war crimes (as long as it doesn’t endanger the lives of the Americans who committed those war crimes, or inconvenience them in any way). At the same time, while I totally support all that, I feel compelled to express my support together with my personal loathing of Assange, who, if all those important principles weren’t involved, I would want to see taken out and shot, or at least locked up in Super-Max solitary … not for any crime in particular, but just because I personally loathe him so much.

I’m not quite sure why I loathe Assange. I’ve never actually met the man. I just have this weird, amorphous feeling that he’s a horrible, disgusting, extremist person who is working for the Russians and is probably a Nazi. It feels kind of like that feeling I had, back in the Winter of 2003, that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, which he was going to give to those Al Qaeda terrorists who were bayonetting little babies in their incubators, or the feeling I still have, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Trump is a Russian intelligence asset who peed on Barack Obama’s bed, and who is going to set fire to the Capitol building, declare himself American Hitler, and start rounding up and murdering the Jews.

I don’t know where these feelings come from. If you challenged me, I probably couldn’t really support them with any, like, actual facts or anything, at least not in any kind of rational way. Being an introspective sort of person, I do sometimes wonder if maybe my feelings are the result of all the propaganda and relentless psychological and emotional conditioning that the ruling classes and the corporate media have subjected me to since the day I was born, and that influential people in my social circle have repeated, over and over again, in such a manner as to make it clear that contradicting their views would be extremely unwelcome, and might negatively impact my social status, and my prospects for professional advancement.

Take my loathing of Assange, for example. I feel like I can’t even write a column condemning his arrest and extradition without gratuitously mocking or insulting the man. When I try to, I feel this sudden fear of being denounced as a “Trump-loving Putin-Nazi,” and a “Kremlin-sponsored rape apologist,” and unfriended by all my Facebook friends. Worse, I get this sickening feeling that unless I qualify my unqualified support for freedom of press, and transparency, and so on, with some sort of vicious, vindictive remark about the state of Assange’s body odor, and how he’s probably got cooties, or has pooped his pants, or some other childish and sadistic taunt, I can kiss any chance I might have had of getting published in a respectable publication goodbye.

But I’m probably just being paranoid, right? Distinguished, highbrow newspapers and magazines like The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Vox, Vice, Daily Mail, and others of that caliber, are not just propaganda organs whose primary purpose is to reinforce the official narratives of the ruling classes. No, they publish a broad range of opposing views. The Guardian, for example, just got Owen Jones to write a full-throated defense of Assange on that grounds that he’s probably a Nazi rapist who should be locked up in a Swedish prison, not in an American prison! The Guardian, remember, is the same publication that printed a completely fabricated story accusing Assange of secretly meeting with Paul Manafort and some alleged “Russians,” among a deluge of other such Russiagate nonsense, and that has been demonizing Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite for several years.

Plus, according to NPR’s Bob Garfield (who is lustfully “looking forward to Assange’s day in court”), and other liberal lexicologists, Julian Assange is not even a real journalist, so we have no choice but to mock and humiliate him, and accuse him of rape and espionage … oh, and speaking of which, did you hear the one about how his cat was spying on the Ecuadorean diplomats?

But seriously now, all joking aside, it’s always instructive (if a bit sickening) to watch as the mandarins of the corporate media disseminate an official narrative and millions of people robotically repeat it as if it were their own opinions. This process is particularly nauseating to watch when the narrative involves the stigmatization, delegitimization, and humiliation of an official enemy of the ruling classes. Typically, this enemy is a foreign enemy, like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milošević, Osama bin Laden, Putin, or whoever. But sometimes the enemy is one of “us” … a traitor, a Judas, a quisling, a snitch, like Trump, Corbyn, or Julian Assange.

Logic, facts, and actual evidence have little to nothing to do with this process. The goal of the media and other propagandists is not to deceive or mislead the masses. Their goal is to evoke the pent-up rage and hatred simmering within the masses and channel it toward the official enemy. It is not necessary for the demonization of the official enemy to be remotely believable, or stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. No one sincerely believes that Donald Trump is a Russian Intelligence asset, or that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, or that Julian Assange has been arrested for jumping bail, or raping anyone, or for helping Chelsea Manning “hack” a password.

The demonization of the empire’s enemies is not a deception … it is a loyalty test. It is a ritual in which the masses (who, let’s face it, are de facto slaves) are ordered to display their fealty to their masters, and their hatred of their masters’ enemies. Cooperative slaves have plenty of pent-up hatred to unleash upon their masters’ enemies. They have all the pent-up hatred of their masters (which they do not dare direct at their masters, except within the limits their masters allow), and they have all the hatred of themselves for being cooperative, and … well, basically, cowards.

Julian Assange is being punished for defying the global capitalist empire. This was always going to happen, no matter who was in the White House. Anyone who defies the empire in such a flagrant manner is going to be punished. Cooperative slaves demand this of their masters. Defiant slaves are actually less of a threat to their masters than they are to the other slaves who have chosen to accept their slavery and cooperate with their own oppression. Their defiance shames these cooperative slaves, and shines an unflattering light on their cowardice.

This is why we are witnessing so many liberals (and liberals in leftist’s clothing) rushing to express their loathing of Assange in the same breath as they pretend to support him, not because they honestly believe the content of the official Julian Assange narrative that the ruling classes are disseminating, but because (a) they fear the consequences of not robotically repeating this narrative, and (b) Assange has committed the cardinal sin of reminding them that actual “resistance” to the global capitalist empire is possible, but only if you’re willing to pay the price.

Assange has been paying it for the last seven years, and is going to be paying it for the foreseeable future. Chelsea Manning is paying it again. The Gilets Jaunes protestors have been paying it in France. Malcolm X paid it. Sophie Scholl paid it. Many others throughout history have paid it. Cowards mocked them as they did, as they are mocking Julian Assange at the moment. That’s all right, though, after he’s been safely dead for ten or twenty years, they’ll name a few streets and high schools after him. Maybe they’ll even build him a monument.

#

CJ Hopkins
April 15, 2019

DISCLAIMER: The preceding essay is entirely the work of our in-house satirist and self-appointed political pundit, CJ Hopkins, and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Consent Factory, Inc., its staff, or any of its agents, subsidiaries, or assigns. If, for whatever inexplicable reason, you appreciate Mr. Hopkins’ work and would like to support it, please go to his Patreon page (where you can contribute as little $1 per month), or send your contribution to his PayPal account, so that maybe he’ll stop coming around our offices trying to hit our staff up for money. Alternatively, you could purchase his satirical dystopian novel, Zone 23, which we understand is pretty gosh darn funny, or any of his subversive stage plays, which won some awards in Great Britain and Australia. If you do not appreciate Mr. Hopkins’ work and would like to write him an abusive email, please feel free to contact him directly.

53 thoughts on “Uncle Tom’s Empire”

(“The demonization of the empire’s enemies is not a deception … it is a loyalty test. “)

– what a truly excellent observation C.J.

This entire post is an uncanny decoding of what we’ve been watching these last few days. Witnessing the many late-night millionaire “liberal” “hip” “comedians” do their shtick of kissing the empire’s derriere in attacking and mocking Assange, while suggesting they also share concerns for “press freedom” has pretty much exhausted my gag reflex. A most “loyal” crew indeed – have they proven to be. What an important service to empire these shills provide. Allowing their audience, who of course also consider themselves to be “hip” and “liberal,” to pass the “loyalty test” with flying colors with each cheap laugh and guffaw.

‘At one point the platinum-haired hacker was hiding from the CIA in David Leigh’s London house. Now, together with the paper’s investigative reporting team, Leigh and Harding reveal the startling inside story of the man and the leak.’

Swallowing the official characterization of JA is as naive and/or stupid as parroting that atrocious “support our troops” incantation, but hero-worshiping JA is almost as naive. I see an extremely ambitious man who pitted himself, in a very dangerous game, against players his hubris caused him to woefully underestimate. Is it heroic to run into a burning building if you believe, delusionally, that you’re fireproof? Just as “Occupy” should have taught us all a valuable lesson (ie: youthful enthusiasm + good intentions = whatever), we should learn from the trap JA walked right into. But we won’t learn if we think of him as a fallen hero and remain addicted to the romance of noble failures.

Please note that nothing released by Wikileaks (or “revealed” by Snowden), thus far, has generated public shock/ unrest on a meaningful level. Now, why is that? It’s interesting to note that the WWW represents the kind of revolutionary, Serf-connecting media-tech that any bomb-tossing, 19th century, anti-Hegemony tactician would give an arm to have access to… yet the only “shocking” info the Serfs have been treated to, on it, in thirty years: the US military fights dirty (to “protect us”, of course); there’s a casting couch in Hollywood; Politicians are generally corrupt… anything else?… oh, yeah, our listening devices are listening devices…. not exactly paradigm-shifting stuff. I mean, Jesus, Julian: nothing in your super secret files about JFK, even… which, as old as that case is, would actually *change* how the majority of lamestream Murrkans see their Gov and culture (such a change representing the holy grail of Resistance)?

Which is precisely why “Conspiracy Thuriss” are demonized (and made ridiculous by association with that hired clown Alex Jones and Flat Earth, et al). Even JA demonized “Conspiracy Thuriss”. Do we seriously believe Hegemony was ever at risk owing to JA’s or Binney’s or Manning’s or Snowden’s or Cryptome’s or Machon’s or Edmond’s efforts (or “efforts”)? Was GW Bush ever seriously in danger of being tried for war crimes at the Hague? I feel sorry for JA but….

StAug: (“hero-worshiping JA is almost as naive. I see an extremely ambitious man who pitted himself, in a very dangerous game, against players his hubris caused him to woefully underestimate.”)

– I’m not sure how respecting the work of a truth teller outing the empire, oligarchy and the war machine itself is “naive,” nor do I see any reason to believe Assange ever thought what he was engaged with was any sort of “game,” nor do I have any reason to believe his so called “hubris” caused him to “woefully underestimate” the completely amoral and sordid underbelly of the Western empire. Your “faint praise” completely validates the author’s thesis I would suggest. Just saying.

At the start Wikileaks was promoted by the mainstream media before they released any documents. That made aware individuals (even mainstream journalists like Greenwald and Scahill) more than a little suspicious, so Time Magazine had to warns us off.

‘That is, of course, as long as you don’t accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency.” TIME Jan. 2007

“At the start Wikileaks was promoted by the mainstream media before they released any documents.”

Exactly, Eric McCay. Anyone who was read JA with any depth (and I mean with focus on his own words, eg, the Cypherphunk book he co-authored with the Mr. Applebaum et al, or his notorious “I enjoy crushing bastards” Der Spiegel interview, or the “Underground” book, etc )… as well as anyone familiar with a little background regarding John Young… will have a *slightly* more nuanced view of JA and his possible motives/ backers than the many people coming late to the party and getting their “info” directly from Normative Media and responding exactly as they are expected to. The hero/villain binary is ultimately useless. And, again: teaches us nothing. But what we can learn from is how JA was profiled so deftly by his enemies that he walked into the oldest (most blatant) trap in the book.

I well remember reading precisely that Times profile and chuckling. Double-bluff? I guess we’ll never know. What we do know is that people running this game are not idiots. Psychopaths, probably, but not dumb.

Man I usually just let shameless self promotion go unchallenged being an underground artist myself. But to actually basically call Assange overrated and in the same thread plug your own “blog” on WordPress is either a hilarious intentional joke or a truly pathetic example of journalistic penis envy.

Assange is a person. Not some Greek God. But the man is responsible for one of the only examples of actual journalism that has gained worldwide attention. A publication that actually catalogs with absolute proof the crimes of empire. So extensive is the proof that the state doesn’t have any answer to it. Against the wishes of the most powerful institutions on the planet, these crimes are irrefutably sealed into history. On top of that, Wikileaks provided a safe outlet for whistleblowers to show absolute irrefutable proof of imperial crimes and know they would be as safe as possible.

Despite whatever you may have written in your blog, it can be totally wiped away with a few keystrokes never to be seen by anyone again. Assange’s contributions to history and dialectical analysis would take scores of years to erase and would still live on until most of the young generation dies.

What people ostensibly “knew” about empire and what wannabe journalists theorized about while quoting mainstream sources and their own anecdotal evidences is actually useless. You can’t organize a large scale movement on hearsay and the writings of the very publications the movement would seek to discredit. Assange’s contribution to the world is far greater than just reiterating what “we already knew”. The man spent 7 years locked away from family friends and sunlight for his work and after that, while being dragged away to face possible execution, he still urged people to stand against these forces of authoritarianism and imperialism.

Please tell me your blog has done 1/1000000 as much for the future of humanity as Assange has. I would really love to see just how bad you have it for him.

“Please tell me your blog has done 1/1000000 as much for the future of humanity as Assange has.”

Please tell me… without resorting to the wide-eyed hyperbole of the fanboy hypnotized by media promotion… what Assange has “done for humanity”. You’re dealing in surfaces. Most of the discourse relating to this Big Ticket News Item deals only with surfaces. On top of that, you’re expressing yourself like a religious zealot with very little access to reason. The Topic is the hall of mirrors of The State… and Spycraft… not a Bible Story. Your passion is meaningless.

Below I’ll link some non-MSM work, on the subject, very much worth reading, whatever the Writer’s specific reading of Assange/ Assange’s project was or is (I have my own feeling regarding Assange, after reading hundreds of pages on the topic (many his own), in more than a decade of thought on the subject):

I reread my entry and your response several times. You are a hypocrite. Of all your blather about depth and surfaces you offer nothing so much as a skimming. I don’t need to reiterate all the official documents that Wikileaks has published to prove in the annals of history the crimes that the blogosphere could only speak of in vague “we knew it already” terms. Of course it’s nothing new to people who already “knew” how criminal the elites operated. Wikileaks sealed in stone worth actual concrete irrefutable proof that even the powers that be could not argue against.

I’ve already said my piece but you’re obviously more interested in being all hipster about it. It is very clear that you have a very high opinion of yourself so much so that you’ve talked yourself into your own fandom. “Fanboy” what a pathetic and juvenile description of my argument. Go back to smelling your own ass fumes. I’ve nothing more to say to a narcissistic hypocrite who will vomit out an attack argument and then commit the same exact sin he’s trying to externalize. Goodbye.

(“They released nothing significant.”) & (“I don’t agree with the notion that anything has been “outed”) – what complete nonsense. What anyone “agrees to” is hardly the issue. The materials speak for themselves.

The DNC emails alone shined a spotlight that resonates to this day on the complete corruption of the DNC and Democratic Party establishment, something that was left only to speculation prior to those releases. Those same emails also essentially rendered the entire Russiagate psyop into an extended run of some sort of theatre of the absurd production, as they proved beyond doubt that the election was most clearly manipulated and rigged before the first real votes were even cast – in fact before the primary process was completed. That email release also called out Bernie Sanders as the straw man he was, as he refused to call for an open convention even though we all knew in real time that would have been the only ethical thing to do given the Wikileaks provided email evidence of complete DNC corruption and voter fraud. That MSM of course refused to address these rather large smoking gun issues and instead continually demonized both Assange and Wikileaks is hardly the fault of Assange or Wikileaks.

The collateral murder video, and the defense of it by the U.S. military, also quite clearly and obviously demonstrated that ongoing war crimes are currently simply standard operating procedure for our military. No need to go back to Operation Phoenix to find such complete amoral criminality at work as “normative” and policy sanctioned. There is a reason U.S. officials are threatening and trying to intimidate the International Criminal Court.

The Vault 7 material on the CIA, with information showing the CIA can leave a sort of cyber trail or stamp framing any foreign entity they like with a bogus charge for “hacking” certainly removed the plausible deniability options from the boys at Langley. The public knowledge of this material makes future use of such tactics by the CIA less likely to be seen as credible.

These comprise only a fraction of the Wikileaks materials, but these few revelations in themselves are hardly “insignificant” if one is paying attention to what is at stake. Again, not that MSM noticed any of this during the entire Russiagate psyop. Downplaying the importance of these revelations seems to me a quite puzzling position for anyone who might in any way be concerned with holding power and oligarchy accountable through shining a light on these wide ranging highly classified materials that are typically hidden from, and inaccessible to, the eyes of the public. The treatment to date of both Manning and Assange would suggest that there is clearly a rather different opinion on the matter in the halls of power regarding just how – “significant” – these Wikileaks releases have been to date.

“The DNC emails alone shined a spotlight that resonates to this day on the complete corruption of the DNC and Democratic Party establishment, something that was left only to speculation prior to those releases.”

StAug – ((“The 4 D’s: Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive”)) – these basic government troll boy tactics are identified in the government’s very own trolling manual which Snowden revealed for any who were paying attention.

When I see someone’s posts consistently exhibiting these characteristics it is clear they either “are” a government troll, or alternatively – they are “posting like” – a government troll. It doesn’t really matter which is the case, as in either case, I’ve got better things to do with my time. Comprende?

On the positive side it is nice to see that C.J.’s work warrants him having his own troll boy following. An obvious compliment regarding the quality of both his writing and analysis I think.

Before us can be observed the final disillusion of an historic tendency. Across the ‘west’, but especially in the U.S. cohorts of one-time radicals and progressives finally dissolving back into the systems matrix.

They are tenured. They are comfortable. They are full time. They are getting old. The fire of fight has fed. They dare not risk resistance. They are furious at being called traitors. There is money and security in turning ‘state’s evidence’. They look like stool pigeons.

We’ve been here before. Like the collapse of the UK Liberals in 1910 or those 1930s revolutionaries wound up as State Department Socialists in the 1960. How about Tony Blair masquerading as a ‘socialist’.

Going ‘bolshie’ is for youth. When you still had some principles. But now, you’re all “Crush Madero”, Bomb Gaza, the Russians Did It and lower the tax rates of the rich. Got an excuse for everything.

Now, trapped in their own waste the burn outs, well, burn out. Transmuted into party card carrying ‘Liberals’. Behold. Degenerative Alchemy At Work.

Long ago, Phil Ochs gave this lot a right bollocking:

Once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings, Learned all the old union hymns
But I’ve grown older and wiser, And that’s why I’m turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.

Liberals will hope to continue to suck the life force out of the oppressed. Once a union red, now a union secretary. With a nice pension. “Everybody settle down now. Pour some drinks!”

Liberal Feminists who think it’s a gain for women when a female in the U.S. Military gets to push the button that wipes out a wedding party.

Satan’s Angels dissolving in the fire of Liberal Hell. At Intake they ask “Interest you in a full flow through to our Far Right Immersion Spa?” They get takers.

You can never come back. You are not wanted. Your name is prick’d. Squeal all you like your smell surrounds you.

Anyroad, it’s just plain fun denouncing the snot out of betrayers. One time comrades. Reminds us not to follow your course. Wind is in Our sails now. We have survived the Scylla and Charbydis of opportunism. Still fit for another go. Looking forward, while you old farts bumble to the cottage.

If you don’t go, we’ll push you. Thought you didn’t want any fighting. Well, it will be like pummeling an old teddy bear. People across Europe – Germany, Italy, Spain, France – gave the boot to the rotten corrupt Social Democrats who could always be relied upon to govern contrary to their promises.

The same tendencies express here in a lack of confidence in the NDP and the crisis of the U.S. Democratic Party. People are fatigued with and disappointed by the outcomes the now retiring traitors delivered. Hence, the rise into the vacuum of ‘populist’ forces. Which at this stage define themselves more by what they are against and rather less so on what they are for. This makes for a really big stir in the alignment of forces.

Well, from a jaundiced view, StAug’s comment above and similar ones here are just a way of presenting lefty-hipster-cool appearance – while passing with flying colors C. J. Hopkin’s “loyalty test”. A wonderfully perceptive observation, as Gary Weglarz notes above. But perhaps it is just an expression of historical and sociological ignorance.

StAug: Do we seriously believe Hegemony was ever at risk owing to JA’s or Binney’s or Manning’s or Snowden’s or Cryptome’s or Machon’s or Edmond’s efforts (or “efforts”)?

Well, I do. Many others do – including, judging from their actions – the Hegemons do. That Assange dismisses conspiracy theories like JFK, 9/11 shows his good sense. They’re a distraction, the new socialism of fools. The “Hegemony” laughs at and enjoys these stories, and which unlike Assange et al, are not demonized at all. Their promoters live comfortable lives, because they change nothing, threaten no-one. But Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden etc are the real thing, they are changing things, “shifting the paradigm”, so this must be denied and they must be mocked. As some do above. But Intergenerationaltrauma’s review of reality dispels the jejune, cynical posing that the leaks and the others were insignificant.

How does the paradigm change, on what time scale? Here’s one of the best answers I know of. In 1894, Mark Twain in France wrote how an assassination there greatly reminded him of his Missouri youth, the hanging of an abolitionist in 1845. Here is the end of his essay “A Scrap of Curious History”:

He was hanged. It was a mistake. Within a month from his death the society which he had honored had twenty new members, some of them earnest, determined men. They did not court distinction in the same way, but they celebrated his martyrdom. The crime which had been obscure and despised had become lofty and glorified. Such things were happening all over the country. Wild-brained martyrdom was succeeded by uprising and organization. Then, in natural order, followed riot, insurrection, and the wrack and restitutions of war. It was bound to come, and it would naturally come in that way. It has been the manner of reform since the beginning of the world.

The idea that Bush not being charged with war crimes proves Assange et al – who are more than wild-brained martyrs too- are changing nothing, are not the threatening the Hegemony. Why it’s as obtuse as thinking that the Southern abolitionist failed because James Polk was not impeached.

“StAug: “Do we seriously believe Hegemony was ever at risk owing to JA’s or Binney’s or Manning’s or Snowden’s or Cryptome’s or Machon’s or Edmond’s efforts (or “efforts”)?”

“Well, I do. Many others do.”

Empirical evidence is so overwhelmingly against your position, Cal, that it’s nearly indicative of a cognitive disorder (aka Religious Faith) that you blithely stick to that position. That’s how The System works and continues to pay enormous, and enormously evil, dividends for the clever people maintaining it. Your blind naivety is a deliberately-engineered product. We can argue all we like… the juggernaut will roll on until people discard the adolescent hero-worship and give up the phony “hope” it feeds into and refuse, on all levels, en masse, to participate. “Leaking” in order to “reform” The State is like pushing for incremental reforms at Auschwitz.

Further, you don’t understand the psyche of The Electorate as well as The Owners do: every time the Pentagon or CIA or Xe are “exposed” doing evil to Third Worlders, for example, The Electorate actually feels *safer*… that’s why the Pentagon/ CIA (which easily could have) didn’t stop the “exposing” at all but *promoted* it. I know that’s over your head, but, again: this debate will change nothing.

I’ve been keeping very large (paper-backed, please note) files on Wikileaks for well over a decade. Here’s an amusing example of one tiny fragment; read it with some discernment, if possible:

WASHINGTON – The enormous cache of secret war logs disclosed by the WikiLeaks website paints a picture of an Iraq burdened by persistent sectarian tension and meddling neighbors, suggesting that the country could drift into chaos once U.S. forces leave.

The reports, covering early 2004 to Jan. 1, 2010, help explain why Iraq’s struggle to create a unified, independent state continues, despite a dramatic reduction in violence. They appear to support arguments by some experts that the U.S. should keep thousands of troops there beyond their scheduled departure in 2011, to buy more time for Iraq to become stable.”

As I said, your positions are based on historical and sociological ignorance. Or as intergenerationaltrauma suggests and is looking more likely, you are a troll displaying your fealty to the oligarchy, the very kind C. J. Hopkins mocks in this satire. It’s remarkable how your criticism of Assange echoes that of the judge who just sentenced him – as “narcissistic”. That seems to be the only other reason motivating your writing – narcissistic self-promotion of your blog, your pose as a superior being knowing so much better than the “naive”, the “serfs” , the “adolescents”. Thank you – for when somebody calls me “naive” I know I am on the right track. These days, it means “in touch with reality” and “worldly-wise” – as opposed to the omnipresent credulous pseudoskepticism that advises doing nothing, and that is nothing but fealty to plutocracy.

Finally, your position is blatantly self-contradictory. According to you “What we do know is that people running this game are not idiots. Psychopaths, probably, but not dumb.” But you insist – against overwhelming evidence – that Assange is ineffectual. But these “clever people” disagree – they imprison and persecute the purportedly ineffectual Assange & Manning etc. As I said, the terror and viciousness that the “Hegemony” displays towards them is excellent evidence of- as well as a vehicle for – their political effectiveness, which is uniting much of the left and many “right” or “populists” or “libertarians” .

“But you insist – against overwhelming evidence – that Assange is ineffectual.”

I claim no such thing. I claim that both narratives (Assange Hero/ Assange Evil) are nonsense designed for casual consumption. I also claim that reading deeper than Mainstream Narrative Feeds (and for longer than a blog essay or comment) is good. Whatever Wikileaks has achieved for whichever powerful concern, the trickle-down effects haven’t reached Duh Masses (that’s us), who are under more surveillance, in the context of a strikingly less “free” Internet, than when Wikileaks dropped its first big event, no? Bravo.

And, again: your grasp of psychology is perhaps less subtle than the Ruling Psychopaths who weren’t much bothered by letting The Electorate see a war atrocity here and there in these “leaks”: the dirty secret: The Electorate *likes* that stuff. You think the atrocities are over? Is torture over? Are invasions over? Are the troops pulling out? Did Wikileaks save Libya? What The Electorate *doesn’t* like is the idea of Uncle Sam killing (white middle class) Americans. Which is why no “leaks” of that nature are allowed. Get it? Which is why the “Left” have been trained to turn their noses up at the blaatant Bushite enormities of “9/11”. Oh, that’s ancient history. Let’s all look at these carefully-filtered offshore bank account “leaks”…!

Whatever esoteric and/or internecine goals were achieved by various Leakydumps, only the most starry-eyed can ignore the fact that certain types of “revelations” were never on the table and the ones that slipped through were spun, deftly, into insignificance… which is what Big Media are for. If that’s not significant or suggestive to you or the fanclub: fine. Believe with all your heart and even buy the box set. Enjoy.

There’s a long history of “them” doing all manner of things to people who have been fleetingly, or occasionally, useful… and for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being Hegemony-supporting theater. Had Assange been any kind of “threat,” he’d have been dead before most of us heard of him. Actual threats-to-Hegemony are easily (and often) killed: they like to hang themselves. Or do you believe that the “CIA” (name your executing organ of choice) are bumbling fools? JA, to be frank, was a bit of a bumbling fool in Sweden, no? A young man’s error. Also rather an error to let himself be Wikileaks’ *face,* right? This is not Hubris?

My remarks about JA’s hubris are based chiefly on the ease with which he walked into the trap that was most convenient to his jailers. Hubris is a forgivable human failing but it’s of some interest; the apparent wins and failures of all kinds of figures are of some interest, but nothing can be learned from the cartoon hagiographies of supermen and saints. I suppose you disagree.

Demonize the naysayers all you like. Wallow in the comfiest worldview you can afford. The Shit will get deeper on its own official schedule regardless.

Wow. What sneering condescension in everything you say. “Duh Masses”? I suppose you think that arrogantly dismissive insulting term bestows some sort of radical credibility on your ranting. I guess the way you’ve put yourself on a pedestal puts you above it all and the rest of us (Duh Masses).

But you are most ludicrous when after criticizing the “Normative Media” you go on to cite the Associated Press. Maybe you should read the linked to article below then rethink what sources you give credibility to.

“It is one of the most important aspects of our media system – and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.

The American Associated Press (AP) with over 4000 employees worldwide. The AP belongs to US media companies and has its main editorial office in New York. AP news is used by around 12,000 international media outlets, reaching more than half of the world’s population every day.

The quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse (AFP) based in Paris and with around 4000 employees. The AFP sends over 3000 stories and photos every day to media all over the world.

The British agency Reuters in London, which is privately owned and employs just over 3000 people. Reuters was acquired in 2008 by Canadian media entrepreneur Thomson – one of the 25 richest people in the world – and merged into Thomson Reuters, headquartered in New York.”

Immensely instructive Writing, on the general topic, from the essay “The Work of Revelations: Snowden the Torture Report, and the Diminishing Returns of Info-Spectacles” (from Jan 2015):

“An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come,” wrote Victor Hugo. Isn’t that ultimately the message of Les Misérables? In contrast to the revolutionaries hopelessly slaughtered en masse at the barricades, it’s Jean Valjean’s unimpeachable righteousness alone that ultimately drives his longtime tormentor to suicide. I dreamed a dream…

“Rather than just being the domain of French Romantics and office motivational posters, the notion that information alone has transformative power is the cornerstone of establishment left thinking. It stems from liberal enlightenment ideals that configure history as a linear progression—embodied in the apocryphal quote about the moral arc of the universe. It goes one way, and that’s forwards towards progress. This coincides happily with the preponderance of lawyers in the ranks of mainstream human rights and civil liberties groups, for whom information is the sine qua non of preparing briefs and mounting cases.

“There’s a more controversial theory that information isn’t inherently good. Even revelatory information—stuff the powerful don’t want you to know—ostensibly in the service of a progressive goal, can be used for right-wing ends if it obscures or moderates a more radical prescription. If information is getting used to co-opt a more radical course of action, then that project is reactionary.

“For its part, progressive e-magazine TruthDig doesn’t want people messing with this line of thinking in the case of the Senate Torture report: “When the truth is spoken by politicians…skeptics are right to suspect it’s not merely the truth. It is always tailored to redound to some benefit to the speaker. But there are moments in history when that doesn’t matter.”

“We’re being told it’s one such moment now. The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a heavily redacted, heavily abridged “Executive Summary” of its 6,000 page report on CIA torture. Adding to the report’s mystique is the fact that the White House and CIA wanted to suppress the information contained within, with the CIA even hacking the computers of Senate staffers compiling the report. The torture report seems like the most illicit kind of revelatory information, so it’s created an enormous amount of commentary and condemnation.

“However, with the exceptions of some specific ghoulish details, most of the information was already known. The most horrific facts—that the CIA raped prisoners, that torture was used to fabricate justifications for the War in Iraq, that human beings were tortured to death, that almost a quarter of torture cases were the result of mistaken identity—had all been reported on within the last decade.

“There’s a disconnect between the content of the torture report and the narrative that now surrounds the event itself. When TruthDig called for putting skepticism aside, it was in a piece hailing Senators Dianne Feinstein and John McCain as their progressive heroes of the week. Feinstein’s fingerprints are on many of the US’s worst abuses of this century, and McCain is one of the most bloodthirsty figures in the US government, and by extension the planet. Given that these newly minted progressive heroes are some of the worst imperialists, and the torture report’s aura doesn’t reflect reality, this seems like exactly the right moment for those meddlesome skeptics to be asking questions.

The journalists and public figures who promote the torture report present it as transformative information, but it’s shaping up to be a spectacle that sets the left back yet again. The report has followed many parallels with the last time this happened, the spectacle surrounding Ed Snowden’s leaks to Glenn Greenwald et al. The Snowden drama provided a useful template for how dissent is going to be managed, channeled, and moderated going forward. The way the NSA leaks were handled has provided the elites a scalable model for taking the release of even revelatory information and using it to come out on top and consolidate their power.”

[…] CJ Hopkins – “Assange has committed the cardinal sin of reminding them that actual “resistance” to the global capitalist empire is possible, but only if you’re willing to pay the price. Assange has been paying it for the last seven years, and is going to be paying it for the foreseeable future. Chelsea Manning is paying it again. The Gilets Jaunes protestors have been paying it in France. Malcolm X paid it. Sophie Scholl paid it. Many others throughout history have paid it.” […]

You have to deal with shit on this level. You can’t cut this mustard you are going nowhere. So, all that theory is an exercise in wankerism. Let’s see how you cut it in the street buddy. Get cut down to size pronto.

Me: “I was a Boy Scout once.”
Liberal: “squak! Acolyte of racist, sexist homophobe Baden Powell.
Me: “You have a really dirty mind. Sweet rose filtered through you comes out as dog crap.”
Liberal: “I am offended. You make me fearful”.
Me: F. Zappa “Don’t you lay your jive on me
Or: …for filth I’m glad to say is in the eye of the beholder.
When correctly viewed, everything is lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz is a dirty old man.

I know what I mean when I say things
How you come to interpret them is your responsibility.

I’m certain that you know that one must be careful when using satire to make fun of a hot topic. The US education system hasn’t been dumbing down students for decades for nothing. You may be creating more Assange-hating numbskulls than you realize.

CJ, this is so finely, beautifully expressed that I don’t have words for it. I can feel your contempt, anger, and grief. The image you created of Julian’s last public photo at his arrest brought to mind Bobby Kennedy’s tribute to JFK, quoting Shakespeare,

“When he shall die take him and cut him out into stars and he shall make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.”

To the 2D cynics out there, no I don’t worship Julian but damn, I honor what he did and what he sacrificed for truth.

I wonder how many could withstand the isolation and punishment of being a political prisoner. It’s easy to be an armchair critic, much harder to be the one who has to endure not only the deprivations of exile and worse, prison, but also the critics who have never and no doubt will never have to endure any of the pain or deprivation that Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden have had to endure. It seems comedians are the ones who are the truth tellers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8mK1eZhavc

scottwork – “It seems comedians are the ones who are the truth tellers. ” – well, that would depend on the comedians. The John Olivers, Steven Colberts, and Trevor Noahs would be more accurately described as the “hipster propagandists” of the world, but certainly could not be considered “truth tellers.” From shilling for the regime-change wars by shamelessly recycling CIA talking points into their routines, to mocking and demeaning Assange on cue with the rest of MSM, they carry water for the oligarchy that hired them. Just adding that qualifier to your observation about “comedians” in general.

I otherwise quite agree with your post. Those lame armchair critics from all over the political spectrum reveal much more about themselves through their critiques of Assange than they do damage to Mr. Assange’s credibility.